Abortion is a controversial topic in society today. There are two sides to the fight which are pro-life and pro-choice. People who are pro-life believe that no matter what the circumstance is it is always wrong to abort fetuses, as they are human beings after all. People who are pro-choice believe that no matter what the circumstance, it is always the women’s right to abort fetuses if they choose. Most arguments for both sides of the topic, become situational—where a solution may be permissible in one situation, it is impermissible in another. Two important philosophers who hold strong sides to the arguments are Judith Jarvis Thomson and Don Marquis.
Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote an essay in Philosophy & Public Affairs, in 1971, titled, “A Defense of Abortion” which spells out her ethical theory. Thomson is pro-choice; he believes that women always have the right to have an abortion. A standard anti-abortion argument is that every person has a right to life, including, fetuses. It is also argued that although a mother does have a right to decide what happens with her own body, the right of a person’s life is stronger and more inflexible, so this exceeds the right to her decision on what happens to her body. But she argues that the right of a life does not justify the use of another’s life against their will.
Thomson uses a few different situational examples to better explain her case. She uses his “violinist argument” to explain her side. The argument is, waking up to yourself back to back with an unconscious violinist. This violinist is famous and is diagnosed with a fatal kidney ailment, but you have the same blood-type which means you can help. You were kidnapped and hooked up to the violinist where he is able to receive your blood and help remove poison from his. You are then given the option to stay plugged into in for nine months or unplug and kill him, what do you do? She feels you would have the right to kill the violinist off because you have the right to your body. Even though the violinist, too, has the right to live, he does not have the right to live off of your body. Thomson compares this to a product of rape. If the fetus is a product of rape it is morally acceptable to abort the fetus because although in most cases, the right to life has more value than the right to one’s body, a fetus being the product of a rape, has less of a right to life than others. She compares the violinist situation to rape because like a woman who has been raped and is now pregnant due to it, has to spend nine months using her body to keep the fetus alive, just like the person with a violinist attached to him/her.
Thomson gives another situation where abortion may be morally permissible. She explains that a woman is pregnant, but learns that by having a child she may die due to her cardiac condition. Standard arguments against abortion in this case is, that directly killing a person is considered murder and murder is always impermissible or that directly killing a person is more inflexible than letting a person die, therefore an abortion is impermissible. She explains that it cannot be a serious argument that a woman is not allowed to abort her fetus because it would be considered murder. She believes it cannot be a serious argument because than the woman carrying the baby must sit and await her death.
The situation she explains is within a tiny house and a rapidly growing child. You are in an extremely tiny house along with a rapidly growing child. If you stay in the house, you will be crushed to death, but the child will grow big enough to destroy the house and walk out safe. Your options are to kill the innocent child, and save yourself or wait patiently as the child grows and wait for it to crush you to death. She believes that not in every circumstance should you do whatever it takes to save your life. If you are threatened death unless you torture someone else to death, you should not do it, due to moral obligations. She believes that in the case of a medical condition threatening a life of the carrier of the child, then it is morally okay to defend her life against the threat, even if it involves killing the fetus.
The last situation where abortion may be morally permissible is when one does all necessary prevention measures but still ends up becoming pregnant. She uses the situation of seed-people to explain her case. Suppose people were seeds that were contained in the air just as pollen is. If the seeds flew into your house by the wind, then they would grow and live in your house. So, if one does not want children, they cover their windows with mesh screens that stop the seeds from flying in; but one of the mesh screens becomes defectives and a seed flies into the house and begins to grow and live there, then it does not have the right due to the preventative measures set forth to stop it. It would be morally permissible to abort the person from beginning to grow and live there because you did not give them permission to exist in your house, in fact you tried to prevent them from coming in by using mesh screens.
Thomson defends women and states that usually women are forced to be good Samaritans by doing something for someone in need, with cost to themselves. A lot of the times, women are forced to be good Samaritans because of laws in place in most states. Thomson also argues that although abortion is not impermissible, it is not always permissible either. You can use her situational events to decide whether or not abortion is considered permissible. She believes that in cases, the right to a life is more valued than a right to one’s body, but also that in some cases such as the violinist experiment, the tiny house experiment and the seed people experiment, the right to a life is less valued than a right to one’s body or self, due to the situation circumstances of each event.
Don Marquis wrote an essay in the Journal of Philosophy, in 1989, titled, “Why Abortion is Immoral” which spells out his arguing ethical theory. Marquis is a believer of the other side of the argument—pro-life. Marquis believes that no fetus should be aborted. Marquis believes that if you kill a human being then you are striping that person of a future and the ability to make a family and live. Marquis thinks that no matter what, no abortions should be done—regardless of the situation.
Marquis believes that it is wrong to kill us. He thinks that the brutality entailed in killing us not make it immoral or that the killing us will endure great loss on others who experience hurt during our absence, but the effect it has on the victim. He believes that the loss of life is one of the greatest loss someone can suffer because it deprives one of all the experiences, projects, and enjoyments one may endure in their future. When someone is killed, they are striped of everything of their values now, and what they may value in the future. In other words, the killing someone deprives then of all of their value of their future, which means that the loss of their future is what technically makes killing wrong.
In regard to killing being wrong due to the deprivation of a person’s future is supported by two specific circumstances. The first is, being murdered which is considered one of the worst crimes possible. He believes killing is wrong in this circumstance because killing deprives the victim of more than any other crime such as, rape or burglary. The second is, when people with a terminal disease who know they are dying, believe that their premature death is a horrible thing, because they are see their future and their experiences they would have otherwise endured, being ripped from their hands.
His idea that the loss of a person’s future, is supported when these implications are examined. In the first implication, it is not only morally wrong to kill beings who are only biologically human. He says there is a possibility that there may be a species that exist, who has futures, just as humans do. So, having a future is what constitutes the immorality of killing, not being biologically human. The second implication, is similar to the first, where he focuses on the fact that it is not morally wrong to kill due to the fact that a person is biologically human, but due to the fact that you are depriving them of a future. So, for species such as nonhuman mammals, who do experience futures like ours, it is wrong to kill them. In the third implication, he says that it is the value of a human’s future which makes killing wrong, even if the person is terminally ill. In the last implication, he explains that we already believe it is wrong to kill innocent babies. He also explains that the wrongness of killing the children and infants comes from the ideas that they too have futures of value.
These considerations take a significant stand in the anti-abortion argument. A fetus comes with a future, experiences, projects and enjoyments just as adults do. Since killing an adult is wrong because you strip them of their future and all their values, it is also wrong to kill fetuses because you strip them of their future and all their values. Marquis explains that this means that abortion I prima facie seriously morally wrong. Although the future-like-our argument is a sound and convincing argument, it cannot be used for all situations. Another argument he says is, the discontinuation account and the desire account.
The discontinuation account, he says is that it is wrong to kill due to the discontinuation of the victims’ experiences. The desire account is used to give another reasoning why killing is wrong. The reason behind the desire account is that it is wrong to kill because it interferes with the fulfillment of a strong desire, and the fulfillment that is necessary to fulfill any other desire one might have. He states that that in order to be considered wrong when talking about abortion, the future-like-ours account has to provide a sufficient, but not necessary, condition for he wrongness of the killing. In order to be considered wrong when talking about abortion, the desire account must have a necessary condition for the wrongness of killing.